First Published: The Call, Vol. 9, No. 13, March 31, 1980.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
I was surprised and dismayed to see Charles Elias’ article on Tito in the Feb. 25 Call. Many people look to The Call for political guidance, and the Elias article can only be misleading.
While the article presents a confused version of Yugoslav history, this is not the key point. The key point is at the end where Elias says, “Each country must be allowed to make its own errors.” Yes, certainly. But this doesn’t mean that any country that wants to call itself socialist should be accepted as such. The truth is that Yugoslav society and the Yugoslav economy have very little in common with socialism.
Nearly all of Yugoslavia’s agriculture is in private hands and always has been. Over one million poor workers are forced to leave their country to find jobs and a livelihood. The Yugoslav economy runs chronic foreign trade deficits which are only alleviated by all the remittances of the workers abroad and by billions of dollars in foreign aid from the U.S., Western Europe and the Soviet Union.
Class distinctions are severe, even between workers and foremen. Higher up the ladder things get worse, with a common sight at congresses being the parking lot full of Mercedes. Mr. Elias may want to call this socialism, but The Call shouldn’t.
Mr. Elias also engages in at least one more questionable practice. At least three different times he claims that China and Chairman Mao supported his views, but never cites any documents or public statements so that readers can decide for themselves what Mao or the Chinese meant.
Just because we support Yugoslav independence doesn’t mean we have to go along with its government’s pretensions. Just because we oppose dogmatism doesn’t mean that everything is up in the air.
J.K., Chicago
* * *
I found Elias’ article on Yugoslavia (Call, Feb. 25,1980) interesting. Certainly many mistakes have been made towards Tito and his country. Especially in today’s world, Yugoslavia plays an important and leading role in the nonaligned movement. Its staunch opposition to both superpowers is admirable.
But I don’t believe this makes Yugoslavia a socialist country. And no real argument or concrete investigation was offered by the article to reverse this historical decision.
I met with members of the Communist League of Yugoslavia (CLY) last summer. They were clear in saying that Yugoslavia did not maintain the dictatorship of the proletariat. They also said the CLY was not a Leninist party, but a “democratic party of the people.” They believe the dictatorship of the working class is an undemocratic form of government.
Of course, each country has its own form of socialism. But there are some universal principles of Marxism.
That class society is always under the dictatorship of one class or another and that socialism means that rule of the working class is one such principle. In fact, it was one of the major issues which led to Lenin’s split with the Second International. The leading role of a Leninist party is also another such principle. The CLY rejects both these principles.
How do we judge socialism? I think one aspect is adhering to Marxist scientific foundations, along with further economic and political investigation. I think Elias makes a subjective declaration based on the need for friends in today’s political world. In my view, Yugoslavia has state capitalism, run by a patriotic and nationalistic bourgeoisie.
J.H., Chicago
* * *
In my opinion, my article did not make any such “subjective declaration” about socialism or capitalism in Yugoslavia. Rather I tried to sum up some of the lessons from the failure of other such subjective declarations which in the past have been made either from the wrong standpoint or as a result of little or no investigation.
If a country can be declared “capitalist” simply over divergences with some “Marxist scientific foundations,” then which countries would J.H. welcome to the category of socialism?
Rather than relegating Yugoslavia so easily to the state capitalists (albeit the “patriotic and nationalistic” type) I feel that more scientific study is necessary.
* * *
I was glad to see your article on the life and contributions of Tito and the people of Yugoslavia. While Tito remains an enigma to many in the socialist movement, it was refreshing to read Charles Eiias’ honest assessment of the man who led his country to victory over the fascists.
It is important for us to change our attitude towards Yugoslavia from the negative to the positive. This is largely in light of the present conditions where Tito’s death could easily encourage that country’s dismemberment or outright invasion from the USSR.
But it is also important to break from the ingrained sectarianism and big-country or big-party chauvinism which led to Yugoslavia’s isolation and disbarment in the first place.
Let’s face it. Whatever errors Tito made in the past, they are no match for those made by the very parties that vilified him so badly.
B.G., Detroit, Mich.